Key result
An ultrasonic Quantitative Volume Flow Meter using combined Doppler parameters correctly identified 36% of 50 patients as having insignificant carotid artery disease.
Why the study?
Does QFM Doppler flow measurement accurately identify insignificant carotid artery disease compared to IV-DSA in patients with suspected extracranial carotid artery disease?
Observational (n=50)
Does QFM Doppler flow measurement accurately identify insignificant carotid artery disease compared to IV-DSA in patients with suspected extracranial carotid artery disease?
QFM Doppler flow measurements may serve as a useful first-line investigation to eliminate unnecessary IV-DSA in patients with suspected carotid artery disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
QFM Doppler may not reliably identify insignificant carotid disease to avoid IV-DSA; leaves open its diagnostic utility pending prospective studies.
Hassam et al. (1987) conducted an observational in Suspected extracranial carotid artery disease (n=50). Ultrasonic Quantitative Volume Flow Meter (QFM) vs. Intravenous digital subtraction angiography (IV-DSA) was evaluated on Correct identification of insignificant disease. An ultrasonic Quantitative Volume Flow Meter using combined Doppler parameters correctly identified 36% of 50 patients as having insignificant carotid artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: